Vote the Bassturds out

[davideinstein]

Honestly, I don't think President Obama has any unique characteristics that led to any of that. Outside of deciding to commit less troops and more drones/air strikes, what decision did he make that led to any of thoese things happening?

What he does have is one of the most divisive personalities that is in my opinion is leading to the fracturing of our society. That more than anything is going to be the legacy of this president.

His legacy will be the best President in history.

[Breadburner]

His legacy will be the best President in history.

That's the one of the funniest bucking things I have read this week.....

[heironymouspasparagus]

His legacy will be the best President in history.

Ignore Breadburnt....he doesn't really read...!

[Hoss]

Ignore Breadburnt....he doesn't really read...!

While I don't think is the best Pres ever, he will be remembered a damn sight better than his predecessor and not nearly as bad as some would have you believe.  Under the circumstances, I think he did about as well as anyone in his position could have done.

[heironymouspasparagus]

While I don't think is the best Pres ever, he will be remembered a damn sight better than his predecessor and not nearly as bad as some would have you believe.  Under the circumstances, I think he did about as well as anyone in his position could have done.

Truth.

[AquaMan]

Best black president from Kenya we ever had!

[Hoss]

Best black president from Kenya we ever had!

Don't forget...best Mooslem President we've ever had too!

[Townsend]

I've noticed that all the latest presidents are remembered for the jokes made about them instead of their deeds.

What do you remember about them as presidents?

Nixon - Crook
Ford - Air Force One stairs and football
Carter - Peanuts/Iran
Reagan - Alzheimer's and Jelly beans
Bush I - taxes and Iraq Pt 1
Clinton I - stains
Bush II - Fumbling and Iraq Pt 2
Obama - Black/Birthers et al

I wonder what Clinton II will be remembered for - Woman, I doubt stains...probably divisive battles with GOP legislators about Supreme Court nominees.

[davideinstein]

That's the one of the funniest bucking things I have read this week.....

Why? Would love to hear something that isn't completely fabricated proving me otherwise.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Why? Would love to hear something that isn't completely fabricated proving me otherwise.

Good luck with that.....

[heironymouspasparagus]

They are self imposed and by no means are our opponents afforded any type of rights. I'm not for or against either particularly.

Any elaboration yet?


If what you mean or think is what it reads like, I am really looking forward to replying....

[erfalf]

Any elaboration yet?


If what you mean or think is what it reads like, I am really looking forward to replying....

Busy day yesterday. Sorry.

Prisoners of War are afforded certain rights (no torture) under international convention. However, terrorists were not included as they are not a party to, well, pretty much anywhere. Which is why what happened at Guantanamo did not have the U.S. running afoul of the Geneva pepes. We are bound by nothing but ourselves (Hamden 2006 and Detainee Treatment Act by McCain) to treat terrorists any way we want. And even then the CIA appears to not be bound by McCain's act. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just commenting on it's legality.
I mean hell, we have the death penalty and are part of the Geneva Convention. How does that square?

And regarding your numbers. I haven't been able to round up my old analysis and doing it over takes time. But long story short, the debt numbers basically show nothing. If anything it would appear that congress has much more to do with them than the president (not shocking to anyone here I'm sure). That being said, even those results were misleading as Democrats have held this branch for most of US history. And what I mean is, only in short stretches have republicans held power, and budgets are long term documents so it is incredibly difficult to assign "blame" to one party or the other.

Look, you need to get off your high horse, and let up on the condescension. Less years in life does not mean a limited understanding of things. And I do numbers ALL fing day. Statistics I have found can be manipulated to show just about anything. The world is far too complicated to run single analysis and determine one cause.

Understand you choose to support certain causes because on some moral or ethical grounds you agree with them. That does not mean the are the absolute only possibly correct way to view the world. There is no empirical evidence to show that "Democrats are better" and there is just as little showing that "Republicans are stupid" as I have seen posted here countless times (on this board).

[heironymouspasparagus]

Busy day yesterday. Sorry.

Prisoners of War are afforded certain rights (no torture) under international convention. However, terrorists were not included as they are not a party to, well, pretty much anywhere. Which is why what happened at Guantanamo did not have the U.S. running afoul of the Geneva pepes. We are bound by nothing but ourselves (Hamden 2006 and Detainee Treatment Act by McCain) to treat terrorists any way we want. And even then the CIA appears to not be bound by McCain's act. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just commenting on it's legality.
I mean hell, we have the death penalty and are part of the Geneva Convention. How does that square?

And regarding your numbers. I haven't been able to round up my old analysis and doing it over takes time. But long story short, the debt numbers basically show nothing. If anything it would appear that congress has much more to do with them than the president (not shocking to anyone here I'm sure). That being said, even those results were misleading as Democrats have held this branch for most of US history. And what I mean is, only in short stretches have republicans held power, and budgets are long term documents so it is incredibly difficult to assign "blame" to one party or the other.

Look, you need to get off your high horse, and let up on the condescension. Less years in life does not mean a limited understanding of things. And I do numbers ALL fing day. Statistics I have found can be manipulated to show just about anything. The world is far too complicated to run single analysis and determine one cause.

Understand you choose to support certain causes because on some moral or ethical grounds you agree with them. That does not mean the are the absolute only possibly correct way to view the world. There is no empirical evidence to show that "Democrats are better" and there is just as little showing that "Republicans are stupid" as I have seen posted here countless times (on this board).

Thank you!

First, let's establish the truth of Treaties and the CFR - Code of Federal Regulations - they ARE the Supreme Law of the Land.  So many seem to be confused on exactly what constitutes the Supreme Law of the Land.  And they blather endlessly about things that aren't in the Constitution, so don't count.  I am not talking about you here - this is just general ground setting information.  The US Constitution states explicitly, Article 6;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


And just as an interesting side note to this discussion, more of Art 6;

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Interesting how the founders specifically stated NO religious test shall ever be required.... they specifically rejected the idea of the US being a Theocracy, both here and in other Constitutional sections.



First, you may want to go actually READ the Geneva conventions which not only covers the treatment of prisoners, but also DEFINES what defines a "prisoner of war".   Here;

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

One might make an argument regarding the status of all those we rounded up, and whether they were adhering to the laws and customs of war, but then there is that pesky Article 5.  This is where the treatment of terrorists IS included UNTIL status determined - "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."   Gotta have a trial before you can waterboard or execute.

This is where Bush and his cronies got so many in this country to subscribe to the idea that somehow war crimes aren't war crimes.  You see to believe that.  But they are.  And they were.  So why is there no impeachment for high crimes?  And prosecution and imprisonment for his cronies?

And now Trump calls for expanding the program.  Yeah, not only is my view - as well as many others - on torture and treatment of people held in custody not just valid based on moral or ethical grounds that I agree with, but it IS the absolutely the only possibly correct way to view this little part of the world on a LEGAL basis!   But that requires us to be a country run on the rule of law.

Death penalty?  Nothing in the international treaty law says we can't have the death penalty.  Even for enemy combatants.  The ONLY prohibition relates to protected persons (under the convention) who were under 18 at the time of the event they are charged with.  We executed DOZENS, is not hundreds of Japanese after WWII - under these conventions and before - for the single crime of waterboarding!  Now we consider it to be a national 'virtue'....


On to the numbers!!

They are not my numbers - they are the real numbers right there on the Federal debt history site.  You can copy/paste and put them into a spreadsheet and see what has happened.  Long story short - yeah they do show something - lots of things!  Congress BETTER have much more to do with it - by definition, it is their job to do so.  There is nothing misleading about the record of the US debt.  It shows what it is and has been.

As for what that means - well, it can also be seen that since 1981 it has skyrocketed beyond all comprehension.  Under predominately Republican controlled conditions.  And when a Democrat was in office - and here is the really interesting part....even when Republicans controlled Congress - we ended up with either surpluses (Clinton) or dramatic reductions in the increases of Federal debt (Obama).  Most extreme example - Baby Bush last budget busting increase of $1.9 trillion dollars, contrasted to the first Obama increase of about $1.5 trillion - the increase DOWN by about $400 billion.  (At these numbers there is rounding effect to nearest few tens of billions).  And those increases in debt got lower every year thru today.

Analyze the debt numbers.  Since you do this all day, I would love to see if you get different results.

Blame?   Huh...well, yeah, it really is easy to assign blame to individuals and parties.  It took over 200 years, until 1980 to get to $900 billion in debt.  By end of Reagan, 8 years later, $2.9 trillion.  By end of HW Bush, 4 years later, $4.4 trillion.  And since tax cuts and spending increases by Republicans had disproportionate effect on the next few years, it took 4 years to get it back "under control".  Then we got W'ed.  Still trying to recover from that.  As I have said before, Dems are accused of being "tax and spend" (which they really aren't if you look at the record), and Repubs are actually "tax cut and spend much more", which IS the real record.  Remember Star Wars?  The military program, not the movies!

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm


Oh, noooo...playing the condescension card!!  The plaintive bleat of ageists around the country!  (You wouldn't happen to be a Typro would you?) 

You are right, less years does NOT have to mean a limited understanding of things.  I am literally surrounded by young adult people - both friends and family - ranging from as young as 17 to 40 somethings who do have exceptional understanding of things.  (There are younger ones, too, but their political awareness is limited...under 10 or 11 years old now.)  And they have open minds that listen to, absorb, gather, and analyze an immense range of information from their kids up to other family friends way older than me....  And no, they definitely do not all agree with me, but that's ok, too, as long as they use their brain and don't just go the easy 'sound bite' route of Faux News Fanboy Clubism.  (And again, NO, I am not accusing you of being that either - you have shown mostly to have a thinking nature.)

I kinda wish I did have a high horse at times...one of these would be nice.
https://www.google.com/search?q=high+horse&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicnsK-yJbOAhVFlSwKHawxAy0QsAQILA&biw=1410&bih=709

[erfalf]

I had done an analysis years ago on debt & congressional/presidential party control. I thought at the time it would be something, but ended up being a whole lot of mixed bag. I still haven't found it. It's several computers ago. May be lost to time.

You also have to consider that not all Congress and Presidents had the same pallet to work with. For example (just one for now), the Clinton years are viewed as an incredibly fiscally responsible time (rightly so I would say, but then again, who do you credit more? Clinton or the R in Congress). But people fail to recall the incredible wealth (tax revenue) that was being generated by a bubble forming tech boom. Which busted just in time for W to take office. I don't know the exact impact that would have made (and no one else does to the penny either), however I know it made balancing a budget a heck of a lot easier. You just can't place blame/credit on one group of people or one person.

Totally anecdotaly, but just reminded of this, the company I work for has a huge awards celebration every year. The top producers nationally are recognized in front of the whole company. 99 out 100 begin their acceptance speeches with "I have to thank my team" or "I couldn't have done it without my team". It is an incredibly refreshing perspective. And these producers are definitely type A go getters too, but realize their place at the same time. I really wish that same perspective was a little more pervasive in society.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You also have to consider that not all Congress and Presidents had the same pallet to work with. For example (just one for now), the Clinton years are viewed as an incredibly fiscally responsible time (rightly so I would say, but then again, who do you credit more? Clinton or the R in Congress). But people fail to recall the incredible wealth (tax revenue) that was being generated by a bubble forming tech boom. Which busted just in time for W to take office. I don't know the exact impact that would have made (and no one else does to the penny either), however I know it made balancing a budget a heck of a lot easier. You just can't place blame/credit on one group of people or one person.

Wasn't just tax revenue that occurred from a static situation - it's the tax revenue that appeared due to tax increases by Reagan (twice).  H W Bush.  And Bill Clinton.  Reagan by far had the biggest increases of the bunch.